Advertising & Blogging: Influencing This Year’s Oscars

As Oscar season is slowly approaching, I have decided to peruse the blogosphere for some new insight into the race itself, including not just which pictures should be considered, but also the sources of influence on the nomination process of the Academy Awards. The nominations for the Academy Awards are voted on by over fifty members of the Academy, ranging from filmmakers to studio and network executives to financiers to film writers and others working within the cinematic infrastructure. In the past, voting has usually been influenced primarily by the amount of campaigning within trade publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter; it is not enough for a film to simply be excellent. Similar to a Presidential campaign (see this year’s race), the value of the candidate can only be realized and recognized with extreme advertising efforts, despite actual raw talent. However, as Patrick Goldstein, film writer for the Los Angeles Times’ Calendar section, explains in a post entitled “Variety’s Oscar ads going…going…gone,” trade publications such as Variety have recently experienced a plummeting of Oscar ad campaigns, despite past data that strongly suggests that the nomination of a film depends highly on the amount of campaigning done on the studio’s end. Goldstein even quotes studio mogul Harvey Weinstein saying “If you don’t pay for that big upfront Oscar campaign, you end up paying at the box office.” So, if print advertisements in trade publications aren’t influencing the nominations, what are? Steven Zeitchik, writer for The Hollywood Reporter, recently wrote an article on his Risky Biz Blog entitled “Do Oscar bloggers matter?”, which obviously poses the question as to whether Oscar bloggers are influencing this year’s nomination process or not. Surprisingly, it seems that bloggers feel like they have little to no power, whereas film writers (including Patrick Goldstein) feel like bloggers have “hijacked” the Oscars, and its nomination process. I have commented on both articles, and have placed them below, along with a link to the article itself, for your convenience.

“Variety’s Oscar ads going…going…gone” by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Goldstein, for your informative post on the recent disappearance of Oscar ads in Variety magazine. To tell you the truth, I was very surprised to see that ad campaigns have decreased recently, and did not realize that until you pointed it out. I share your belief that the best movies will receive nominations regardless of our current economic situation, and was surprised to read Mr. Weinstein’s response. However, I would like to see at least some statistical data that might back his claim. I feel like there will always be films that can garner enough publicity and hype to earn a nomination. Regarding your response, I too will be curious to see the money spent on advertising for “The Reader”, and its correlation to the speculated number of nominations it will receive. I also agree, especially as a graduating senior who hopes to work in the entertainment industry, that it is extremely frivolous and narcissistic for studios to gratuitously spend millions of dollars on Oscar campaigns for for films like “The Dark Knight”. Is it really too much to ask the Academy to vote on films based on merit, and save companies millions of dollars on advertisement campaigns while simultaneously maintaining thousands of jobs? Why is Bart so opposed to this method? I’m shocked to hear that someone as esteemed as Peter Bart would be so blindly devoted to the Oscar campaigning process. The only counterargument to our belief is that Oscar campaigning could potentially shine light on a film to members of the Academy who had not previously seen or heard of a particular film. While I understand this viewpoint, I would respond by arguing that Oscar campaigning usually means the film has already received enough attention to be in the public eye, and members of the Academy who haven’t heard of a film by that point probably don’t deserve to be on the Academy. Nominating a film is a privilege, not a right, and Oscar campaigning seems to be the easy way out for nominators to quickly filter their choices.

“Do Oscar bloggers matter?” by Steven Zeitchik
Comment:
Thank you Mr. Zeitchik for your article on the presence and influence of bloggers in the confused and muddled up Oscar race of 2008. I think most would agree that it is quite bizarre that it is the bloggers who do not feel like they are influencing anybody, and the film critics who believe bloggers like us have apparently “hijacked” the Oscars. I think you pose a decent argument for the potential victory for either Sean Penn or “Milk”, due to the uncanny resemblance and relevance to the current protests and publicity over Proposition 8 in California. As for the debate as to whether or not bloggers have influenced the Oscar race, while blogging may not directly influence voting this year, considering the influence blogs have now, in terms of when movies are screened, how competitors and print media review the films, and how movies are positioned, one can only imagine the influence blogging will have in even three years. I think real world events will always affect one or two films when the timing is right, but they will just affect those couple films. I believe blogging will certainly surpass real world events, and as we can see from the increasing popularity of online media and content distribution, and that the Internet is the future and publications will become less and less necessary, blogging will ultimately have a greater impact on the Oscar nominations than the millions of dollars studios put into advertisements and campaigns. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it bloggers who originally proposed the honorary nomination of Heath Ledger after his death? If Ledger is nominated, I believe it will be because of bloggers. While it is unfortunate that there is even the debate as to whether blogging or Oscar campaigns will influence Academy members more, it is a reality, and I believe blogging has the greater influence, with campaigning as a clear second, and current realities such as Obama’s victory or Proposition 8 in third. Thank you very much for your post, I look forward to a follow up on this topic when nominations are within weeks of being publicized.

Wise Guys: Are Mob Movies Finally Making a Comeback?

What happened to the gangster film? Is it me or are mob movies not what they used to be anymore? It seems as though throughout my entire childhood I was raised on some of the best films, let alone mob movies, ever. From 1990 to 2000, Hollywood saw an extreme surplus of this genre starting with Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas in 1990, and ending with Analyze This in 1999. In between, we saw amazing films such as Reservoir Dogs in 1992, A Bronx Tale in 1993, Pulp Fiction in 1994, The Usual Suspects in 1995, Fargo in 1996, Donnie Brasco in 1997, and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels in 1998. Along with many other films such as Jackie Brown, Dick Tracy, and Carlito’s Way, it seemed as though every year in the 1990’s, audiences were blessed with at least one amazing gangster film. With the exception of The Departed, which won Best Picture in 2006, and few others, audiences have not seen many gangster films since 2000. As 2008 comes to a close, and with one more year left in the decade, it appears as though the 2000’s will not be known for its gangster films. However, after some research, I believe the 2010’s could potentially be the decade mob movies come back in full force.

Recently, producers Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher have acquired the rights to a book written by Joaquin “Jack” Garcia, the title character to the film Making Jack Falcone, which will be produced by Paramount Pictures. The film follows Jack Garcia, a Cuban-American FBI agent who went undercover and infiltrated the Gambino crime family, coming within weeks of being a made man. Steven Soderbergh is set to direct, and he will be working again with a great writer named Peter Buchman, who wrote Soderbergh’s latest project, Che. Buchman was quoted saying that Falcone will be “a perfect vehicle for an actor with shape shifting tendencies; this is a mob man, after all, who moved fluidly not only between scenes but ethnicities.” The Hollywood Reporter also notes, “Paramount has several mob and undercover projects in development, including an undercover prison tale to be penned by William Monahan.” One of these “several” projects includes I Heard You Paint Houses, which be helmed by the master of the modern gangster film, Martin Scorsese, and will star Robert De Niro. This film will mark Scorsese and De Niro’s first partnership in a gangster film since Casino. The film is an adaptation, based on the book of the same name about infamous hitman Frank “the Irishman” Sheeran, who “is reputed to have carried out more than 25 mob murders”, including the death of the Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Steve Zaillian, who is responsible for mob movies such as American Gangster and Gangs of New York, will write the film. I believe that if I Heard You Paint Houses and Making Jack Falcone are successful, which they probably will be, they will be the catalyst that brings back the gangster genre. However, the increase in mob films will not be caused only by audience demand.

In my first post, “2009 Oscars: Why They’re Going to be ‘Revolutionary’”, I briefly discussed what was known as “response films” of the 1930s, which were made as a “response” to something awful in America, most notably The Great Depression. As it so happens, most of these films were gangster films. The 1930’s saw a surplus of gangster films such as Little Caesar in 1930, The Public Enemy in 1931, Scarface: The Shame of a Nation in 1932, and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse in 1933. I believe one of the reasons Hollywood is about to see more and more gangster films is because Hollywood is finally “responding” to the chaos that has amassed in the last eight years. Films have always been a commentary on American lifestyle, capitalism, and the current establishment. However, when the economic or social climate becomes abysmal, particular films are made to distract audiences from their current woes, especially gangster films. Now, one may of course question the validity of this theory, stating that the surplus of gangster or mob films of the 1990s as well as the 1970s (The Godfather, Serpico, Get Carter) were not in response to anything in particular. I happen to agree. The reason audiences saw so many gangster films in the 1970s and 1990s were because these were both decades in which all genres, not just the gangster film, were reinvented. The 1970s marked the beginning of modern films, and the 1990s marked the beginning of what film historians call post-modernism. However, in the upcoming years, the gangster genre, and all other genres, will not be reinvented, and 2010 will not mark a new era in film history. It is this reason that leads me to believe even more that the upcoming increase in gangster films will be because they are in response to the economic and political turmoil that America is currently facing. Audiences simply prefer it, and Hollywood subconsciously responds. Of course, it will be impossible to tell if this theory is true until the next decade comes to a close. However, after Making Jack Falcone and I Heard You Paint Houses are released, I recommend you keep an eye on the gangster films that are being picked up by studios and production companies alike. It’s time for the gangster to make a comeback in Hollywood, and that time is coming incredibly soon.

Netflix: Leading the Way in Content Distribution

It is quite possible that Netflix will single-handedly change the way we watch movies. Netflix Inc.'s online movie rental subscription service has garnered over 7.5 million subscribers who can choose from a DVD collection of over ninety thousand titles. As of late, Netflix is expanding much more than their subscriber base. Netflix Inc. is making significant joint-ventures with other companies, as well as developing its technology, in a major attempt to provide its subscribers with the capability to watch movies through different channels and mediums (not to mention the incentive for non-subscribers). As of one year ago, Netflix subscribers were able to rent movies through the mail, or stream a limited collection on only a PC. Earlier this year, Netflix introduced Roku, a box that allows subscribers to stream a similarly limited collection of titles through one’s television. The box is currently being sold for $99.99. While Roku was a major step in expanding its content distribution, the selection is limited, and both subscribers and business analysts alike have been wondering what Netflix’s next moves will be. Well, after a deal with Microsoft this summer, starting this fall, Netflix subscribers will be able to stream movies online through Microsoft’s Xbox 360 video game console. Netflix has also made a partnership with both LG and Samsung to develop and sell boxes similar to Roku, but with the technology that supports both HD and Blu-Ray content. While all of these advancements are quite significant, I believe the two most recent advancements in Netflix’s distribution mediums are also the best to date. This past Friday, Nexflix allowed subscribers to test and begin using their beta program that will allow Mac users to stream content online. Netflix also announced Thursday that it will begin a partnership with TiVo, Inc. to integrate the Netflix catalogue into its already wildly successful DVR boxes. This week, I have decided to sway away from Hollywood finance to comment on two separate articles written by fellow bloggers who have written about Netflix’s partnership with TiVo, and its inclusion of Mac computers into its online streaming capabilities. The first article, “Netflix Streaming Finally on Tivo”, written by Elaine Chow, examines and explains Netflix’s partnership with Tivo. The second article, “Netflix Opens Beta for Mac Movie-Streaming Service”, written by Gregg Keizer, quite obviously takes a look at the new beta that will allow Mac users to also stream the Netflix catalogue. For your convenience, I have posted both my comments and links to the original articles below.

“Netflix Streaming Finally on TiVo” by Elaine Chow
Comment:
Thank you Ms. Chow for your article explaining and examining the recent partnership between Netflix Inc. and TiVo Inc. First of all, it was very nice to immediately read what was most important: the TiVo products that would feature Netflix’s streaming service. Some questions I have is whether or not any of these products will feature Blu-Ray technology, and a possible estimate as to how much you think these products will cost. I particularly appreciated the inclusion of quotes from both companies’ CEOs. This venture solidifies an extremely powerful partnership between two very successful companies and was an incredibly strategic decision by both companies. Hearing what each executive had to say gave me a much better idea as to the vision and attitude of each CEO and their companies. As a Netflix customer, I am extremely excited for this new service, and believe this collaboration is the best alternative for subscribers to view content aside from Netflix’s mailing system. While online streaming to one’s computer is becoming increasingly more popular, I believe the DVR feature of the TiVo boxes will really differentiate this product from any of Netflix’s other partnerships, namely Microsoft, Samsung, and LG. As Reed Hasting, CEO of Netflix, quoted, Netflix fans are “avid movie watchers and this combination gives them immediate access” to the content available through TiVo and Netflix’s vast catalogue. I wonder, do you think this partnership will negatively affect the sales of the products that are being sold by Samsung and LG? I can’t help but think that even with Blu-Ray capabilities, the combination of TiVo’s amazing service and now a Netflix catalogue will surely weaken the sales of both companies. I would have liked to read some commentary on how this partnership will affect Netflix Inc.’s relationship with cable-service providers such as DirecTV or Time Warner, and how it will affect Netflix’s entry into that particular industry. Other than that, I thought this was a very enjoyable and informative article, and I also appreciated the references to other articles. Thank you again for your article.

“Netflix Opens Beta for Mac Movie-Streaming Service” by Gregg Keizer
Comment:
Mr. Keizer, your article explaining Netflix’s technology developments and their relationship with certain companies is very interesting. I believe Netflix Inc.’s ability to provide subscribers who also own Apple computers with their on demand online streaming service is an incredibly significant development in Netflix’s overall strategy to expand its distribution methods for current subscribers. I think we can both agree that streaming online seems to be the next method of viewing content, and I don’t think Netflix would be able to continue to grow and remain profitable without being able to provide all computer owners with that basic service, regardless of whether it is a Mac or PC. This technology seems to be a great incentive for Mac owners who are not yet subscribers of Netflix. As a Mac owner with a Netflix account, I have been waiting patiently for the ability to stream content through my computer, and I can almost guarantee that I will renew my subscription for at least another year due to these constant improvements in Netflix’s service. I would have liked a little bit more explanation as to what Silverlight 2.0 was, and how Mac users could download that program. While I was thoroughly informed, I was still left a little confused as to where one could download the Silverlight program and how it streams Netflix’s content. I think a link might help readers who don’t already have the program. I also would have liked a little more explanation as to why Netflix went with Microsoft’s streaming technology instead of Apple’s. I think that is a very interesting topic, and I’m glad you brought it up in your article. However, you only touch briefly on Apple’s anti piracy software and why they refused to share it with Netflix. Do you think Netflix’s deal with Microsoft will prevent any future partnerships between Netflix and Apple? Overall, I appreciate the article, and think you provided readers, especially Mac owners, with much more excitement about Netflix Inc.’s future strategic decisions.

Cut The Fat: How Hollywood is Adjusting to the Recent Economy

Two posts ago, I talked briefly about the current state of Hollywood in the midst of the economic crisis that we are in, but focused primarily on the split between Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks SKG. This week, I have decided to focus on the larger economic affects on Hollywood, and how the entertainment industry is being shaken up in every sector, from major studios to independent film festivals. As stocks and quarterly figures alike continue to fall, companies are making serious changes in order to counter their projected losses. Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal (seen right), has decided to cut $500 million from next year’s budget, despite profits in its last eight consecutive quarters. The figure will constitute a total of three percent of operating expenses for 2009, and the major cuts will be in three areas: discretionary spending, promotion expenses, and staffing. Zucker was quoted in a memo stating to his workforce, “We are living in a time of unprecedented economic challenges, and it is increasingly clear that the worldwide economic slowdown will continue into next year.” I agree wholeheartedly with Zucker’s quote, and believe that most of the recent cutbacks in the entertainment industry are due to the grim projections of 2009. In addition, it seems that the cutbacks most companies are making are primarily in the number of projects being produced, especially in the independent film market, and the advertising and marketing campaigns of new or current projects. I believe it is in the best interest of studios and production companies alike to cut the fat on extraneous endeavors and projects for the next few years, and focus on the tent-poles that will bring in enough revenue to sustain these companies through this rough period. Unfortunately, other aspects of the industry may not be so fortunate.

In the past month, several major independent film distributors and production houses have been completely shut down by their parent companies. Warner Brothers eliminated two of their independent, albeit successful production companies, Warner Independent and Picturehouse. Paramount Pictures absorbed most of its staff at its specialty division, Paramount Vantage, as well as terminating fifty of its employees. These businesses were not extraneous ventures started by the studios during some boom, producing small films no one had heard of. For example, Paramount Vantage was responsible for, among many other noteworthy titles, There Will Be Blood and Into the Wild, two of this past year's nominees for Best Picture. Aside from those in the independent film sector, even big studio films that have been slated for a release date have been pushed back in the attempt of conglomerates to minimize losses for 2008. One primary example of this is Paramount’s film, The Soloist (pictured left), starring Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr., which has been delayed to March of 2009, instead of its initial November 21st, 2008 release date. The decision was made because Paramount did not have the budget to support the film’s advertising and marketing campaign, which included an Oscar campaign for the Best Actor and Best Picture category. Research shows that the delays on this film alone will save Paramount $60 to $70 million in prints and advertising costs. Along with The Soloist, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures Rob Moore said last week that it was “cutting costs by reducing the number of films released each year from about 25 to 20.” While Paramount will lose the revenue of these five films, this cutback seems to be a safe, and even timely decision. Moore went on to explain that unless the split with DreamWorks was made, Paramount would have a difficult time reducing its production count to twenty films per year. The split also created the opportunity to make other potentially lucrative deals, including an agreement with Marvel Studios to distribute all four of its films that will be released through 2011. As we have seen with the success of Iron Man in both the box office and DVD sales, the distribution deal seems to be a very smart move for Paramount.

One can imagine that if these major studios and production companies are minimizing costs as much as possible, smaller film festivals around the country, including the Jackson Hole Film Festival and the Santa Barbara Film Festival, are really feeling the brunt of it all. Due to insufficient funds, these festivals have been forced to shut down. According to one studio exec, “Outside of Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, and Toronto we’ve never acquired a film at another festival. And in terms of tracking talent, anything that generates heat comes back to L.A. anyway.” It seems that without celebrity backing garnering enough publicity, many of these events are losing corporate sponsorships, which account for most of the festivals’ budgets. Not only are cutbacks being made everywhere in the film industry, but costs are also being minimized in the television world across the board. NBC’s Knight Rider, ABC’s Private Practice, and FOX’s Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have all been slated for nine more episodes apiece, despite mediocre to poor reviews and ratings. If this were last year, let alone five years ago, these shows would have been cancelled and a new show would have taken their place. However, “given the cost of producing and marketing a new scripted series,” companies like NBC Universal “might have a greater temptation to give a show like ‘Knight Rider’ more time to find an audience.”

Due to the recent economy, aside from job security, stock-market crashes, and everything else we have to worry about, audiences around the country are going to have to worry about quality of entertainment and media for the next year, as almost all mediums are minimizing their content and rate of production due to the decreasing stock value of the major conglomerates that control the output of entertainment for the majority of the country. Whether it be in film, television, or the independent arena, audiences will not be available to the maximum potential of the industry for the next year. However, this downside is the only option the industry has in a time like this, and Hollywood will bounce back when the time comes. Every industry needs to play it safe these days, and Hollywood should be no different.

The Biz 101: A Look At 20 Industry Related Websites And Blogs

In today’s post, I have decided to highlight 20 websites and blogs that I believe encompass all aspects of the entertainment industry, on both the business and production side. All of the sites chosen are not only quality sources of information, but also follow the Webby and IMSA criteria. For up-to-date news and/or reviews on current or new films, I would recommend Ain’t It Cool News, JoBlo, and Rotten Tomatoes. Ain’t It Cool News fares more on the side of news and not reviews, but the site is incredibly up-to-date, filled with relevant and engaging content, and usually supports its articles with new and interesting pictures or videos. However, some negative aspects of the site are the visual design (very basic, and has no pictures on the front page), and the news is primarily devoted to big studio films and remakes. JoBlo.com has a much larger scope, including reviews, trailers, and even a schedule of release dates. It’s very easy to navigate, and visual design is great, but some of the articles are not always from a prominent source. I think the layout of the site could be improved upon, especially the balance of pictures and text. The last of these websites, Rotten Tomatoes (above), is a better version of the previous two websites combined. Rotten Tomatoes is a great place to go for honest reviews of current films, as well as box office information and news pertinent to the film. With the inclusion of Flash technology, the functionality of the site is great, as is the structure and visual design. However, the reviews are sometimes inconsistent, and there are a little too many advertisements and pop-ups that the reader must ignore in order to enjoy the site.

There are many magazines and newspapers that are either dedicated to or feature a film section, and there are only a few that are not only the best online representation of the publication, but also a great source for news and information on current and upcoming. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are the go to industry-dedicated publications for both film and television, and are not to mention read habitually on a day-to-day basis by everyone in the film industry. The two sites are pretty similar, with only minor differences. Both sites feature a great visual design, structure, and easy navigability, and have sections that touch on virtually every aspect of the film industry, from reviews to festival information. The only detriments to these two sites are that the articles are not long enough, and that they focus more on day-to-day activities rather than pointing out trends and the direction of the entertainment industry. New York Times: Movies is a very well organized site that has some of the best content, and provides the reader with a very interactive and enjoyable experience. Articles are not limited to current or upcoming films like Ain’t It Cool News, and the scope of the articles is not limited to big budget or studio films. The Wall Street Journal Media and Marketing is a great site for readers who are interested in a much larger scope of information than the entertainment industry. While the content of its film articles are strong, the site’s content is much more focused (as it should be) on the business side of not just the film industry, but also the marketing and advertising industries in general, as well as technology and its influence on the media today. My only suggestion is that it should improve its current structure and organization. I think subsections or categories that organize the news by more specific industries would vastly help the readers’ navigation of the site. Empire is a film magazine that really excels in its content and interactivity. Articles are interesting and creative, and the site also features its own blog. Unlike Empire, Entertainment Weekly, another popular entertainment publication, has much more articles and also includes television and DVD in its scope, but the site is visually overwhelming, and many of the articles are simply pictures of celebrities or trivial lists such as “25 Butt-Kicking Babes”.

If a reader is looking for websites that are information based, IMDb.com and Box Office Mojo have the best database of film statistics and facts. IMDb.com is the most popular of the two, and while it does feature film reviews and minimal industry news, the site is primarily an encyclopedia or resume collection of all past, current, and future films. The visual design and depth of content is much better than that of Box Office Mojo, a site that has an extensive database of box office information for past and current films, but doesn’t feature much more than that. Due to the recent and pending strikes in the entertainment industry, I thought it important to feature websites of several organizations and guilds within the entertainment industry. The Writers Guild Of America(left) and The Directors Guild of America have websites with easy navigability and interesting perspective and content. However, The Directors Guild of America could use much improvement in visual design, and should also improve the organization of the site. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the American Film Institute are two organizations with very informative sites. The Academy’s site could improve greatly if it simplified its home page by reducing the amount of links to other articles. However, the site has a great database for Oscar information, and also provides links to other very interesting organizations in the film industry. The American Film Institute also features an incredible database of information and many valuable lists of important films, but does not have enough news articles on its website.

While there are many other relevant and noteworthy websites, there are also a myriad of blogs about the entertainment industry that prove to be just as informative and stimulating as an online publication or organization. Movie Marketing Madness is an interesting blog that focuses on the marketing of current films, such as poster and trailer evaluation, advertising and marketing strategies, and the occasional review. However, the site does not engage the reader and does not provide enough links to other sources. Other blogs that provide information and updates on entertainment news within the blogosphere are The Hollywood Reporter: Risky Biz Blog and Slash Film: Movie Marketing. Both of these sites have interesting content and provide the reader with a very extensive list of other references, but both blogs also have a very poor visual design that leaves the reader ultimately unimpressed. The last blog I chose to highlight is from one of the blogs on Variety’s website, authored by the editor-in-chief of the magazine, entitled Peter Bart's Blog. This blog does not feature much day-to-day news, but provides the reader with creative and interesting articles they wouldn’t find anywhere else. While these blogs and websites are a mere sample of the plethora of sites on the Internet dedicated to film and the entertainment industry, hopefully this blog provided you with a convenient linkroll of websites that will give you a well-rounded education and update on the industry.

Hollywood Finance: Surviving In The Midst of A Meltdown

On September 19th, DreamWorks SKG and sibling company Paramount Pictures inked finalized a negotiation ending a long, two-year partnership. Steven Spielberg (that’s where the ‘S’ comes in, in ‘SKG’) signed a deal with India-based Reliance Big Entertainment ensuring $500 million in equity, as well as securing $700 million in credit through JP Morgan to back a new, $1.2 billion film company. This new venture is just one of many recent deals in Hollywood that have guaranteed billions of dollars in financing over the next few years. But wait. One minute I’m reading about the suffering economy, and the “impending doom” and “horrible reality” that awaits me, and the next minute I’m reading about the $230 million budget for just one movie, (the upcoming 007 sequel Quantum of Solace), along an entire slew of films that have just been slated for the next couple years that will no doubt have budgets that exceed $100 million. How can this be? Where is this money coming from? After yesterday’s stock market “meltdown” as only one of the more recent events that have threatened the very possibility of a functional economy, one must wonder: If every industry in America is failing right now, how is the film industry still finding the capital it needs to not only survive, but thrive?

This week, I’ve chosen to explore the blogosphere, and comment on two separate, but related posts that explore not only the recent split between DreamWorks and Paramount, but also other financing negotiations and how today’s economy is affecting the film industry. The first article, “Surreal Separation: Why Did DreamWorks Say Bye Bye to Par?” examines the DreamWorks-Paramount split and the repercussions of that negotiation, and was written by Editor in Chief of Variety magazine, Peter Bart. The second article, “Wall Street Finance ‘Banking’ On Hollywood?” which was written by Julia Boorstin, writer for both cnbc.com and Fortune magazine. For your convenience, I have copied both of my comments below.

“Surreal Separation: Why Did DreamWorks Say Bye Bye to Par?”
Comment:
Thank you Mr. Bart for clarifying so simply the reasons for why DreamWorks and Paramount Pictures have decided to end their partnership. While many people may be confused as to why these companies would want to sever their ties, it makes complete sense that a company which has put out very successful films believes they could operate much more successfully with their own financing. I can understand your comment about DreamWorks setting up a new distribution deal with Universal, but I don’t really understand why the most likely candidate for setting up a distribution deal with DreamWorks is Universal. How did you come to that conclusion for a studio instead of a studio like MGM? Has either DreamWorks or Steven Spielberg commented on a possible distribution deal with Universal or is that merely speculation? The only other question I was left with after reading your post was ‘Who came out the victor?’ Will DreamWorks be able to sustain itself over a long-term period on its own? Will Paramount experience the reduction in overhead through losing DreamWorks like they projected? And finally, if neither party came out the victor, but this was a win-win for both parties, and both parties wanted out of their relationship, why didn’t this deal occur months and months ago? While I understand your posts are not intended to examine an issue in depth, I think some explanation on these issues would really help clarify a lot of questions that readers have.

Overall, I really enjoyed the post, and I especially like your overall conclusion about Hollywood and its role in our economy, that it really doesn’t make sense, and we shouldn’t always demand that they do, especially in the film industry. When has the film industry ever really made sense? I also agree, that no matter what happens to our country, people will always want to go to the movies. While you have no answer now, is this an issue that you see yourself re-visiting? Thank you again for your explanation.

“Wall Street Finance ‘Banking’ On Hollywood?”
Comment:
Thank you Ms. Boorstin for your article explaining the financial role in Hollywood today. While I do believe the economy is in a state of shock right now, I do also believe and agree that “the entertainment industry is having no problem securing bank-financed credit.” Your explanation of the DreamWorks-Paramount negotiations was fairly brief, and on strictly a financial based approach, which is completely understandable for cnbc.com. However, I think a little bit more financial information, or possibly future projections could help readers gain a broader scope in the issue. Which big titles over the next year or two is this deal really affecting? Now that DreamWorks is on their own per se, how many films will they be able to produce each year with their secured financing? Also, what were the financial repercussions of this deal? Were there any at all? I also think your reference to Ryan Kavanaugh’s company Relativity Media and Relativity Capital is a very good example showing the outrageous capital that is being created in Hollywood these days. However, I think if you included some of the other studios or players that Relativity will be working with, readers can get a better idea of what possible films, or where in general the billions of dollars that Relativity has generated is going to go.

Aside from your explanations of recent financial booms for Hollywood, I was especially interested by your overall theory that Hollywood is counter-cyclical. While I did somewhat agree with blogger Peter Bart in that there really is no obvious explanation to anything in Hollywood, I believe that a counter-cyclical cycle is very possible. Hollywood does seem to act differently than any other industry, throughout its existence. While we may be in the midst of a possible depression, it does amaze me to see so much advertising and marketing for new television, video games, and movies. However, I think some other reasons as to why Hollywood is counter-cyclical would really help readers understand your view. Thank you for your take on the entertainment industry and the economy.

2009 Oscars: Why They're Going To Be 'Revolutionary'

America is in an economic crisis that is being compared to The Great Depression. The struggle in the Middle East still continues, with no end in sight. People can no longer escape the headlines. There is nowhere to hide anymore, not even a movie theater. This fall, moviegoers across the country will not be going to the movies to escape necessarily, but to entertain themselves while remaining anchored in the present. In recent years, the American public has become much more aware, and much more active in addressing our nations issues than we were a mere five years ago. While the realities of today may not be pleasant, both the public and movie audiences alike are no longer interested in the Wizard of Oz. We have seen the proverbial “man behind the curtain,” and will not be fooled by Hollywood wizardry any longer. While audiences are still enjoying movies for their entertaining aspects such as A-list talent or special effects, audiences of today and tomorrow are beginning to favor the balance between entertainment, and the focus on the similar or familiar issues of today. For this reason, I believe that the top contenders and winners at the 2009 Academy Awards will be the films that can properly achieve this balance. Two primary examples of this balance will be the films Frost/Nixon and Revolutionary Road.

The first, Frost/Nixon (see poster to the left), is a political-drama based on the play by Peter Morgan, focusing on a series of interviews conducted in 1977 that occurred between BBC talk show host David Frost, and former President Richard Nixon. The film stars Frank Langella as Richard Nixon, and Michael Sheen as David Frost, who both appeared together in the stage production, and directed by legendary filmmaker Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13). While the film may take place over 30 years ago, one cannot avoid the themes that Frost/Nixon addresses, and their similarities to today’s politics. Uncovering the truth, demanding accountability from our President, and the media’s role in politics are at the forefront of American discussion. While these issues are prominent themes in the film, the differentiating factor in Frost/Nixon is that these themes will not be force-fed to the audience, unlike other political films. Audiences are now smart enough to tell the difference between a film like this, and a film that over-emphasizes its cause. Frost/Nixon will be a perfect example of a film that will achieve the balance between Hollywood credentials (Ron Howard, Peter Morgan, Frank Langella) and the indirect association with topical themes.

Another film that achieves the balance both audiences and producers are seeking is Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road. Based on Richard Yates’ novel by the same name, Revolutionary Road (see poster bottom right) is a story set in 1950’s Connecticut, and focuses on a married couple once free spirits, caged in a life of suburbia in order to raise their kids. The primary theme of the story, an issue that also happens to face millions of Americans today is suburban malaise. While this is not the first potentially successful film about what the editor in chief of Variety magazine Peter Bart calles "suburban malaise" (1999’s American Beauty won Best Picture, and also happened to be directed by Sam Mendes), it too does not necessarily force-feed the theme to its audience. Along with its topical relevance, Revolutionary Road, like Frost/Nixon, also boasts an impressive cast of Hollywood talent such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet (whose last film together was 1997’s James Cameron epic Titanic which also happened to win Best Picture). I fully expect Revolutionary Road to not only captivate audiences, but also secure a position as a Best Picture nominee.

While it may not have been recently, this will not be the first time a trend like this has occurred in Hollywood. According to not only Peter Bart, but also esteemed film critic and University of Southern California professor Leonard Maltin, in the 1930s, “response films” became increasingly popular after The Great Depression. This was primarily due to the fact that people were no longer ignorant to the issues facing America. Producers learned all too quickly that educated audiences want to watch films that do not necessarily educate, but can assume that the audience is educated enough to understand the parallels between the film itself and modern issues. However, this is not to say that the only successful films this fall will be those that indirectly address issues facing the American public. There is a big difference between successful, and unforgettable. There are plenty of highly anticipated comedy (Zach and Miri Make a Porno) and science-fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still) films alike that I’m sure will succeed tremendously in the box office. Conversely, this does not mean that the films that address these relevant, and for the most part morose topics will be the box office hits of the year. In fact, I can almost guarantee that both Frost/Nixon and Revolutionary Road will do less than favorably in the box office. I do however, believe that the films that not only excel in cinematic value, but also resonate with the American audience will be the films that dominate the Best Picture category. The American audience has progressed significantly since five years ago (2003’s Best Picture winner was Lord of the Rings: Return of the King), and the Best Picture winner this year will be a clear example of that distinction.